Todd Wayne Vaughan

[John Dolva]

T. : "I don't seem to know of ANY "LHO-Guilty" devotees who have been converted to the "Conspiracy Nut" camp. There may be some--but I've never heard of even one in my thirty years of Kennedy assassination research."

...there are. Funnily enough, I'm one of them.

I got involved in a circuitous route involving graphic manipulation of panoramas and found the z-film a good source of an almost 180 degree sweep to use study how to balance all the distortions and color values etc as one makes a wide panorama out of a large number of series of photo's where the light source (the sun) remains fixed. At that time, I felt that surely the governments are not that deceptive (re LHO is solely responsible). (In hindsight, however I remember as a six year old in Sweden reading in the newspaper about the marvels of the magic bullet, showing the drawaings and so forth, and feeling there's something not quite right, but accepted that "the experts knew best" and left it at that.)

In fact, it's what I've learnt on this forum and attendant personal research that has convinced me that the case for a conspiracy is indeed credible.

While perhaps never a ""LHO-Guilty" devotee, I'm most definitely today a "Conspiracy Nut" (and see no stigma in being so.)

[David G. Healy]

Todd Vaughn is one of those infamous "ex-conspiracy believers" who have converted to lone-nutterism for inexplicable reasons. When he used to post regularly on another forum several years ago, I asked him, as I do all supposedly "ex-conspiracy believers" who have made this miraculous transformation, just what was it that made him reject all his former views and suddenly accept the nonsensical official story that he had ridiculed before. Just like all the others, the silence of his answer was deafening. Other "converts" would be Dave Perry, Greg Jaynes, Dave Reitzes and, of course, Gary Mack (who, despite his claim to still believe in a conspiracy, is for all intents and purposes an LNer during his frequent t.v. appearances). There are others, less well-known than these, some of them posters on this forum, who fit into this category. I have yet to hear a rational explanation for their "conversion," and I have asked the question several times. Interestingly enough, there is not a single example, that I know of, of a long-time lone-nutter suddenly converting into a believer in conspiracy.

I am one of those converted LHO guilty advocates. I was a die-hard conspiracy believer until about 1980. I began studying the Kennedy assassintion in earnest following the publication of "November 22, 1963: You are the Jury" however at that time I was more convinced in Josiah Thompson, Mark Lane, and Edward Epstein's views than I was of David Belin's. But the more I read of the assassination and especially the more I read conspiracy-oriented books, "Rush to Judgement," "Six Seconds in Dallas," "Who Killed Kennedy," "They've Killed the President", "The Assassination Tapes," "The Second Oswald" etc... I soon found that these authors didn't really solve the case. In fact they never provided ANY answers. I saw very quickly that conspiracy believers were much better at standing on the sidelilnes and asking question sthan they were in stepping onto the field and providing answers that agreed with logic, common sense, and the known evidence. Then with the findings of the HSCA and the public discredting and embarassment of Jack White for his supposed photographic "expertise" I started to smell a rat. By 1980 I began examining the evidence with an "Oswald Guilty" frame of mind and EVERYTHING suddenly made perfect sense. Questions I had always struggled with now made perfect sense. Questions like the backyard photographs (of which there was no credible evidence of forgery), Oswald's autograph on the back of one of those photographs, Oswald taking the package of "curtain rods" to work, Oswald's unexpected trip to Ruth Paine's house on November 21st, Oswald fleeing the scene after the assassination, Oswald walking/jogging/running seven blocks to catch the very bus that would have stopped across the street from the TSBD, Oswald leaving the bus in a panic when it stalled in traffic, Oswald having the cab driver drop him off four blocks past his North Beckley boarding house, Oswald taking a gun with him after leaving the boarding house, Oswald's shooting of Tippit (which was iron-clad based on the evidence, in my mind), Oswald's attempted murder of Officer McDonald, Oswald's numerous lies while being interrogated, Oswald's failure to implicate any co-conspirators, and Oswald's lies concerning his rifle ownership. When I assumed (hoped) Oswald was innocent, NONE of these facts made any sense. Once I assumed Oswald was guilty, then EVERY single fact in the case made perfect sense. It rang true. Since my conversion EVERY SINGLE conspiracy book has rehashed old material without solving ANYTHING. Points that have been disproven for years are still brought up as if they were brand new. I cannot believe that in over forty years no one in this so-called conspiracy has ever talked. That thought alone boggles rational thought. The later exposure of the chicanery of individuals like the photo-expert fake, Robert Groden, in the Simpson civil trial, only added to Jack White's previous exposure. Revelations of Mark Lane's dishonest handling of Helen Markham's statements, the irrational and ridiculous claims of Zapruder film alteration, all simply were too silly for me to give serious thought. In fact the number of former conspiracy believers who have converted is constantly growing--however I don't seem to know of ANY "LHO-Guilty" devotees who have been converted to the "Conspiracy Nut" camp. There may be some--but I've never heard of even one in my thirty years of Kennedy assassination research.

That, at least is my story.

You left out the part about JACK WHITE BEING YOUR NEMESIS. Please explain.

Jack White

"your nemesis"

quite a few of the oldtime Nutter's are back, Jack.... As this one is: " I'ah seen the light...." LMAO! Even Dave Reitzes emerges from retirement (the original: "I'ah seen the LIGHT")... Bugliosi's recent tank job brought many of them back into the fray... This Folsom dude is a .john (mcadams) grad and a Mel Ayton apologist/propogandist, he's been around for awhile, not near the 30 years he claims (10 years tops). He's a Von Pein supporter on alt.conspiracy.jfk...

Edited June 29, 2007 by David G. Healy

[Jack White]

I have never heard of Folsom (except Folsom Prison), yet he claims

I am his "nemesis". And he calls you Pal. Are you his pal?

And he says "Jack White's embarrassment by the HSCA" helped turn

him into a LNer.

Shows the level of his knowledge. I WAS NOT EMBARRASSED by the

HSCA. To the contrary, the committee paid me a $200 per diem for

each day (plus expenses, including hotel, car and food) that I was in

Washington consulting with them. Not embarrassing at all. I furnished

them with evidence which is still valid today.

Jack

[Stephen Miller]

Well, gentlemen. It sounds like Todd, Reitzes, Dave Perry, and Co. have been duped by Bugliosi (with the exception of Von Pain) and are coming back into the fold. We hope to hear their comments on the books by David and Larry and on Pat Speer's work and also call on them to support Jeff Morley in the cause to unseal the Joannides files from the CIA.

[T. Folsom]

Todd Vaughn is one of those infamous "ex-conspiracy believers" who have converted to lone-nutterism for inexplicable reasons. When he used to post regularly on another forum several years ago, I asked him, as I do all supposedly "ex-conspiracy believers" who have made this miraculous transformation, just what was it that made him reject all his former views and suddenly accept the nonsensical official story that he had ridiculed before. Just like all the others, the silence of his answer was deafening. Other "converts" would be Dave Perry, Greg Jaynes, Dave Reitzes and, of course, Gary Mack (who, despite his claim to still believe in a conspiracy, is for all intents and purposes an LNer during his frequent t.v. appearances). There are others, less well-known than these, some of them posters on this forum, who fit into this category. I have yet to hear a rational explanation for their "conversion," and I have asked the question several times. Interestingly enough, there is not a single example, that I know of, of a long-time lone-nutter suddenly converting into a believer in conspiracy.

I am one of those converted LHO guilty advocates. I was a die-hard conspiracy believer until about 1980. I began studying the Kennedy assassintion in earnest following the publication of "November 22, 1963: You are the Jury" however at that time I was more convinced in Josiah Thompson, Mark Lane, and Edward Epstein's views than I was of David Belin's. But the more I read of the assassination and especially the more I read conspiracy-oriented books, "Rush to Judgement," "Six Seconds in Dallas," "Who Killed Kennedy," "They've Killed the President", "The Assassination Tapes," "The Second Oswald" etc... I soon found that these authors didn't really solve the case. In fact they never provided ANY answers. I saw very quickly that conspiracy believers were much better at standing on the sidelilnes and asking question sthan they were in stepping onto the field and providing answers that agreed with logic, common sense, and the known evidence. Then with the findings of the HSCA and the public discredting and embarassment of Jack White for his supposed photographic "expertise" I started to smell a rat. By 1980 I began examining the evidence with an "Oswald Guilty" frame of mind and EVERYTHING suddenly made perfect sense. Questions I had always struggled with now made perfect sense. Questions like the backyard photographs (of which there was no credible evidence of forgery), Oswald's autograph on the back of one of those photographs, Oswald taking the package of "curtain rods" to work, Oswald's unexpected trip to Ruth Paine's house on November 21st, Oswald fleeing the scene after the assassination, Oswald walking/jogging/running seven blocks to catch the very bus that would have stopped across the street from the TSBD, Oswald leaving the bus in a panic when it stalled in traffic, Oswald having the cab driver drop him off four blocks past his North Beckley boarding house, Oswald taking a gun with him after leaving the boarding house, Oswald's shooting of Tippit (which was iron-clad based on the evidence, in my mind), Oswald's attempted murder of Officer McDonald, Oswald's numerous lies while being interrogated, Oswald's failure to implicate any co-conspirators, and Oswald's lies concerning his rifle ownership. When I assumed (hoped) Oswald was innocent, NONE of these facts made any sense. Once I assumed Oswald was guilty, then EVERY single fact in the case made perfect sense. It rang true. Since my conversion EVERY SINGLE conspiracy book has rehashed old material without solving ANYTHING. Points that have been disproven for years are still brought up as if they were brand new. I cannot believe that in over forty years no one in this so-called conspiracy has ever talked. That thought alone boggles rational thought. The later exposure of the chicanery of individuals like the photo-expert fake, Robert Groden, in the Simpson civil trial, only added to Jack White's previous exposure. Revelations of Mark Lane's dishonest handling of Helen Markham's statements, the irrational and ridiculous claims of Zapruder film alteration, all simply were too silly for me to give serious thought. In fact the number of former conspiracy believers who have converted is constantly growing--however I don't seem to know of ANY "LHO-Guilty" devotees who have been converted to the "Conspiracy Nut" camp. There may be some--but I've never heard of even one in my thirty years of Kennedy assassination research.

That, at least is my story.

You left out the part about JACK WHITE BEING YOUR NEMESIS. Please explain.

Jack White

"your nemesis"

Well Jack,

Not to hurt your feelings but I have never felt you were an "expert" in anything related to the Kennedy assassination. I've found your claims of photograph alteration to be ridiculous and without serious merit, let alone devoid of logic and common sense. I don't believe ANY evidence has ever come forth to show the backyard photographs were altered in any way, and haven't seenb anything you've contributed of ANY scientific worth. Much like Robert Groden, (another infamous fake concerning his so-called expertise) I have always sought in my career to expose fakes and phonies in all walks of life whenever possible and you and Groden lead the pack. The Internet has created a new genereatin of self-annoionted 'experts" whose credentials are dubious at best. However with throngs of adoring internet fans, some pseudo-experts amass great numbers of devotees in spite of their lack of qualifications. It seems that all too often when these self-annointed experts fall into the hands of REAL experts in a respective field, their "expertise" is quickly exposed and deflated. You before the HSCA and Groden on the witness stand during the Simpson civil trial.

Whew....and there you have my views. Of course I don't know ANYTHING about you personally. You may be a wonderful father, grandfather, husband, soccer coach, or gardener. I don't mean to cast aspersions on your personal attributes, but once you step into the arean of public debate and present yourself as a photograph expert then you are fair game for criticism. I do not claim to be a photographic expert therefore I am NOT fair game in such a debate. I am an American History scholar who has spent thirty years studying ALL areas of American History, focusing as a hobby on the Kennedy assassination. I have neither the time nor the interest to publish anything on the case. I am NOT an expert in the assassination. I simply read a great amount on the topic, form my own opinions, and feel free to critique others opinions as they are free to criticize mine. Believe me you have to have a set of steel balls to be the ONLY lone nut advocate to enter THIS website that is teeming with conspiracy nuts just waiting to eat you alive. But that's all right. It's still fun, isnt' it.

Your pal,

T. Folsom

[Jack White]

Come to think of it, it was attacks on me like this that got Clint Bradford

tossed off of the DellaRosa forum. So maybe I was the NEMESIS of this guy.

Jack

[David G. Healy]

T. Folsom' droned:

[...]

Whew....and there you have my views. Of course I don't know ANYTHING about you personally. You may be a wonderful father, grandfather, husband, soccer coach, or gardener. I don't mean to cast aspersions on your personal attributes, but once you step into the arean of public debate and present yourself as a photograph expert then you are fair game for criticism. I do not claim to be a photographic expert therefore I am NOT fair game in such a debate. I am an American History scholar who has spent thirty years studying ALL areas of American History, focusing as a hobby on the Kennedy assassination.

**************

Well there you have it folks, another Lone Nut quasi scholar-historian ~cough-cough~, not fair game for anything.... well thank GAWD... at least we don't have to clean up your messes...

Murder as a hobby, how quaint! You can move on with your life now, Nutter we've relieved your burden....

Edited June 29, 2007 by David G. Healy

[Cliff Varnell]

It's still fun, isnt' it.

T. Folsom,

Several of us have pointed out to you that the holes in JFK's clothing are

2" to 3" too low for the SBT.

You haven't yet responded.

So how is that "fun" working out for you, so far?

If you hope to divine a response to the physical evidence of conspiracy,

one that doesn't involve claiming that clothing only moves in multi-inch

increments, you're wasting your time.

But hey -- that's what hobbies are all about anyway, eh?

[Stephen Miller]

If Vaughan and his LN cohorts are reading this forum, I have a question for them:

What do you make of the flaws and failures of the Secret Service in Dallas and their covering up after the shooting and also them drinking WHILE ON OFFICIAL DUTY at the Fort Worth Cellar the night before? It may be coincidence to you but it is certainly not USSS standard operating procedure to me.

[T. Folsom]

It's still fun, isnt' it.

T. Folsom,

Several of us have pointed out to you that the holes in JFK's clothing are

2" to 3" too low for the SBT.

You haven't yet responded.

So how is that "fun" working out for you, so far?

If you hope to divine a response to the physical evidence of conspiracy,

one that doesn't involve claiming that clothing only moves in multi-inch

increments, you're wasting your time.

But hey -- that's what hobbies are all about anyway, eh?

I'm surprised you are still whipping this dead horse. The Discovery Channel already resolved this apparent dilemma in their "Magic Bullet" analysis about two years ago. In that special, they had a double matching Kennedy's dimensions wearing clothing identical to Kennedys with metallic pins on the location of all wounds. When that individual STOOD up the wounds on the back appeared TOO low to line up with the frontal exit wound to the throat. However when they placed that double in a sitting position holding his arm in the same position the Zapruder film proves Kennedy was in around the time of the first shot that struck Kennedy his shirt AND jacket were raised up to the point that the marks on the body and the mark in the jacket and shirt matched EXACTLY. I'm sure you are aware of the photographs taken of the president's jacket riding up on his back as the motorcade entered Dealey Plaza. For me, that settled the issue completely. Your point is old and already moot based on scientific reenactments.

Thanks for the softball pitch.

[T. Folsom]

I have never heard of Folsom (except Folsom Prison), yet he claims

I am his "nemesis". And he calls you Pal. Are you his pal?

And he says "Jack White's embarrassment by the HSCA" helped turn

him into a LNer.

Shows the level of his knowledge. I WAS NOT EMBARRASSED by the

HSCA. To the contrary, the committee paid me a $200 per diem for

each day (plus expenses, including hotel, car and food) that I was in

Washington consulting with them. Not embarrassing at all. I furnished

them with evidence which is still valid today.

Jack

Nice spin.

A couple of reminders:

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Without giving any account to other factors?

Mr. WHITE. That is true. I am not a physicist or any sort of a scientist who could determine anything relating to the perspective. We don't know how close the rifle is to his body. We don't know how close the camera is to the subject, so it would be virtually impossible for just a plain citizen like me to interpret the perspective of this photograph.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any training in analytical photogrammetry?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any formal training in forensic photography?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any formal training in the study of shadows in photographs?

Mr. WHITE. No.

and later

Mr. White, you have made reference to several points in these photographs that suggest that Oswald's head is disproportionately---- I withdraw the question. That the body of Oswald is not consistent in the various photo-graphs in light of the head size; is that correct?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. To what extent, if any, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of an object's tilt on its apparent length in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I realize you are not a scientist. Do you now whether scientists consider the use of transparency overlays to be a good way of detecting differences between soft edged images?

Mr. WHITE. I have no way of knowing that.

and

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I just have one question.

Mr. WHITE. All right.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph?

Mr. WHITE. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different-

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically----

Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you.

I think this falls under a public embarassment whether you were paid or not. Please keep in mind that Robert Groden was paid for his public embarassment also. Payment means nothing.

Sorry about the bad memories, Jack.

[Jack White]

I have never heard of Folsom (except Folsom Prison), yet he claims

I am his "nemesis". And he calls you Pal. Are you his pal?

And he says "Jack White's embarrassment by the HSCA" helped turn

him into a LNer.

Shows the level of his knowledge. I WAS NOT EMBARRASSED by the

HSCA. To the contrary, the committee paid me a $200 per diem for

each day (plus expenses, including hotel, car and food) that I was in

Washington consulting with them. Not embarrassing at all. I furnished

them with evidence which is still valid today.

Jack

Nice spin.

A couple of reminders:

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Without giving any account to other factors?

Mr. WHITE. That is true. I am not a physicist or any sort of a scientist who could determine anything relating to the perspective. We don't know how close the rifle is to his body. We don't know how close the camera is to the subject, so it would be virtually impossible for just a plain citizen like me to interpret the perspective of this photograph.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any training in analytical photogrammetry?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any formal training in forensic photography?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any formal training in the study of shadows in photographs?

Mr. WHITE. No.

and later

Mr. White, you have made reference to several points in these photographs that suggest that Oswald's head is disproportionately---- I withdraw the question. That the body of Oswald is not consistent in the various photo-graphs in light of the head size; is that correct?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. To what extent, if any, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of an object's tilt on its apparent length in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I realize you are not a scientist. Do you now whether scientists consider the use of transparency overlays to be a good way of detecting differences between soft edged images?

Mr. WHITE. I have no way of knowing that.

and

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I just have one question.

Mr. WHITE. All right.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph?

Mr. WHITE. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different-

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically----

Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you.

I think this falls under a public embarassment whether you were paid or not. Please keep in mind that Robert Groden was paid for his public embarassment also. Payment means nothing.

Sorry about the bad memories, Jack.

Quite the contrary. It was Blakey who became embarrassed. Nina Totenberg of NPR

and my friend Seth Kantor both confronted Blakey about his hostile attempt to "impeach

his own witness" during the lunch break. After lunch recess, Goldsmith apologized to me

and lamely said he was just following "Blakey's method". Read the testimony after the

lunch break and you will find they were much more "charming". I had rather have Kantor

and Totenberg on my side than Blakey and Goldsmith. The only thing embarrassing about

the incident is the ethics of Blakey's attempt to "embarrass a citizen" who was there searching

for truth.

Jack White

nemesis of L'Nutters

PS...Groden testified truthfully in the O.J. trial; the photos HAD been doctored.

O.J. was covering for his son Jason.

[Stephen Miller]

Isn't it ironic that now Blakey admits that he was duped by the Agency regarding Joannides and also calls for the release of the Joannides material along with Jeff Morley and others? Funny how time changes things.

[Michael Hogan]

I think this falls under a public embarassment whether you were paid or not.....

Sorry about the bad memories, Jack.

The chief counsel and staff director to the HSCA, G. Robert Blakey evidently found Jack qualified enough to call as a witness:

Mr. Chairman, the committee has also asked Mr. Jack D. White to appear as a witness today. Mr. White has studied the backyard photographs for over 10 years. Mr. White received a B.A. in journalism major, history minor from the Texas Christian University in 1949. Currently, he is vice president of Witherspoon and Associates, Ft. Worth's largest advertising and public relations firm. Mr. White has served with Witherspoon in various capacities for over 25 years. He has done extensive work in all areas of reproduction, including photographic, mechanical, printing, and the graphic arts. Mr. White has lectured in the United States, widely on the subject of the backyard photographs. (HSCA Hearings, Volume II, page 322)

[T. Folsom]

I think this falls under a public embarassment whether you were paid or not.....

Sorry about the bad memories, Jack.

The chief counsel and staff director to the HSCA, G. Robert Blakey evidently found Jack qualified enough to call as a witness:

Mr. Chairman, the committee has also asked Mr. Jack D. White to appear as a witness today. Mr. White has studied the backyard photographs for over 10 years. Mr. White received a B.A. in journalism major, history minor from the Texas Christian University in 1949. Currently, he is vice president of Witherspoon and Associates, Ft. Worth's largest advertising and public relations firm. Mr. White has served with Witherspoon in various capacities for over 25 years. He has done extensive work in all areas of reproduction, including photographic, mechanical, printing, and the graphic arts. Mr. White has lectured in the United States, widely on the subject of the backyard photographs. (HSCA Hearings, Volume II, page 322)

Then please answer me this:

If they thought so much of Jack White and his photographic "expertise" why did they reject out of hand his claims of alteration in the backyard photographs. If they were such fans of his wouldn't they have embraced his groundbreaking discovery?

Seems like a bit of a contradiction here boys.

Your bestest buddy,

T.F.